Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What Rights Should We Accord Felons?
One of the virtues of being the age I am is that I have former students who are out and about in the world, and every once in a while one of them does something that sets me chortling. Here is one such example — a letter that appeared in Pravda-on-the-Potomac on Sunday:
As a retired state and federal prosecutor, I was surprised to read in Gideon Yaffe’s July 28 op-ed, “Let felons and prisoners vote,” that prisoners “should be allowed to vote, no matter their crimes,” apparently because “we cannot hold citizens to account for violating our laws while denying them a say over those laws.”
If so, why stop there? From the rise of Athenian democracy 2,500 years ago, through the enlistment of African Americans in the Union Army, to our 26th Amendment, which in 1971 enfranchised 18-year-olds, the right to vote has been based in part on the ability to bear arms. Many Americans believe that the right to bear arms, as set forth by the Second Amendment, is both fundamental and inextricably linked to the right to vote. If the professor is right, convicted murderers, terrorists and traitors ought to have the same rights that other U.S. voters have.
A reality TV show can’t be far behind. Perhaps it should be named “Gladiators.”
@roblong? There might be an opportunity here. Perhaps this show could be a Ricochet project.
Published in General
The show has already been scheduled. It’s called “Virginia.”
A reminder that gun control isn’t always bad and all our bill of rights aren’t absolute. Well done Mr. Rahe
I am of the mind that once a person has completed their physical sentence such as jail time, parole, or probation and paid their respective fines, then all of the rights that they were barred from exercising should be fully restored. If people are broadly deemed to not be capable of interacting in society with the free exercise of the rights afforded to free men after the completion of the existing sentencing terms, then the sentencing for that crime should be legislatively adjusted and those who commit the crime after the adjustment of terms will be subject to the changes. That is to say, if there is a belief that the adjudicated criminal cannot be trusted with the exercise of their rights, then that class of criminal should not be free in the public until a set time has passed.
Punishment should be just, swift, and honest. When that punishment is complete the person adjudicated of the crime should be fully restored to public life.
But the punishment includes the forfeiture of voting rights. If voting rights are restored, then the punishment isn’t complete.
While I can see the rationale for prohibiting guns from certain criminals, not sure what the rationale is for prohibiting restoration of voting rights? Anyone have an idea?
Lifelong forfeiture? Whats the rationale?
If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime?
The term of punishment is decided according to the perceived severity of the crime. For some crimes, a prison term of 3-5 years is chosen by the people’s representatives. For others, life.
If we think that the term of forfeiture should be life, rather than some shorter term, then it simply means that we think the crime was too severe for the shorter term.
So you see no need for the criminal justice system to have different sentences for different crimes?
The question was “what rights should we accord felons?”, not “what rights do we currently accord felons?” Thus I responded that I think that those who have finished their physical punishment (incarceration, probation, parole) and have paid their fines should be restored the full exercise of all of the rights of free men.
I am quite aware of the existing restrictions and the processes by which rights are restored upon the completion of physical sentences and financial judgements.
If a state decides to include forfeiture of future voting rights as part of the punishment for committing a felony, then I would respect the judgment of that state.
I strongly disagree. Convicted criminals face an array of punishments, including the loss of rights, that reflect both justice for the victims and security for society. Fines, restitution, jail time, parole, probation, loss of firearms rights, and loss of voting rights all have a place in the overall treatment of felons. Jail sentences are the primary tool for both aspects of punishment, but release doesn’t have to mean we (society) are required to trust the felon. I think a deliberate process to recover voting and/or firearms rights after release is appropriate.
And if they do it for traffic offenses… ? Your response would be if you can’t do the time….
How does forfeiture of voting rights impact either justice or security?
BTW, Does anyone doubt that there are other rights that would act as far more a deterrent to crime than voting rights? Driving rights, Social Security rights, right to procreate,… right to access the internet
Part of the problem is the incredible increase in felony offenses at the same time of sentence reductions. It used to be that most felonies carried a death penalty, so the fact that a felony conviction stripped one of his voting rights wasn’t so big a deal — he most likely wasn’t going to many elections to vote in after a multi-decade prison term. Now that only the most heinous of murderers are sentenced to death while hacking a website for profit is now considered a felony, we’ve created this large class of felons who then go on to have lengthy post-sentence lives where they are impacted by these rules that were written for a different system.
I’m with you Herbert; if the crime is so severe that the felon should be punished for the rest of his life, why are we letting him out of jail? And if he’s been appropriately punished, then the slate should be clear. What’s the “kindness” of letting out a sex offender if we’re then going to exile them to tent cities under bridges or places like Miracle Village, a town with no children, schools, parks, or churches so sex offenders can have a place to live?
If the offense is serious enough to be classified as a felony, like felony hit and run, sure.
Because incarceration is part of the societal sanction fot criminality. Forfeiture of voting rights is another part.
See, that logic would work better if there was some qualification for voting for everyone else beyond “18+ year old citizen.” (Which of course, there was when that punishment was put in place.) I struggle to see why the person who spends 12 months and a day in prison (definition of a felony) is unqualified to vote when the person who spends 12 months less a day in prison or their whole life on welfare is considered qualified.
Why limit it to felonies? Why not lessor offenses? Driving offenses?
Dr. Rahe,
This is perhaps the most idiotic argument that I have ever heard. The nature of being a prisoner is that your “rights” have been curtailed. The idea that you deserve voting rights is infantile. Mensheviks always have a host of imaginary rights to bestow on anyone and everyone. Then the Bolsheviks come along and start shooting people. Then the Stalinist come along and start purging, starving, and murdering many many more. Amazingly, their original expansion of rights implodes into no rights at all. Oh, what a surprise.
Regards,
Jim
I’d be willing to extend the sanction to misdemeanors, but it seems a bit harsh to me. In any event, that would be up to the state legislatures.
Unless my reading comprehension fails me, Dr Rahe is on your side…
Good question. I’m always open to screwing the landlords.
I think Jim was referring to the cited op-ed.
Technically, your right to vote isn’t about the laws directly; your vote is about the lawmakers. That’s the whole difference between a democracy and a republic; i.e., a democracy would be a vote on each issue directly, where a republic is only about who carries out the lawmaking process.
So while it sounds good, let’s face it, nobody has a direct “say over those laws.” To say that upholding the law only comes at the price of participating in the creation of the law is simply not correct.
Why shouldn’t lawmakers be held accountable by all citizens? What is it about having been jailed before that changes the need for all citizens to participate in holding representatives accountable?
A quick Googling indicates that all 50 states have a path back to voting rights, even after felony sentences are complete. Some are unrestricted. Some require no restored rights until any probation is done. A few require the Governor to personally restore those rights.
The 14th Amendment gives the states exclusive rights in this area. Leaving it to the states has largely settled the issue, so our system is doing what it is supposed to do. Progressives tend to favor instant restoration, either right after the sentence or even during the sentence – which happens in Maine and Vermont now. The debate is good to have, but is moot since permanent disenfranchisement doesn’t appear to exist in the US.
Social Security is not a right, it’s a tax. See Helvering v Davis.
My standard line here: I would even be willing to let Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have the right to vote, after they’ve done their time and paid their debt to society.